Ok folks, time for a step back. Interaction Design as defined in almost every place, but most importantly on our web site (http://www.ixda.org/about_interaction.php) is all about designing behavior.
"Interaction design defines the structure and behaviors of interactive products and services and user interactions with those products and services." Not just the behaviors of the products/services but also the user (aka human) interactions (aka wait for it ... BEHAVIORS) with those systems. We are having a really long thread here which is inanely obvious and the only issue is HOW not WHAT. "Any tool is a weapon if you hold it right" -- Ani Difranco. This quote comes to mind almost every time spouts that "this or that technology is "bad" (or unusable)" (Usually who's initials are Jakob Nielsen") What is "good IxD" or even "ethical IxD" is very different from what is IxD and what we do and don't do. Good & yes even ethical are subjective to degrees of critical mass agreement, and in many cases those some agents of subjectivity are not just cultural but also temporal or historical in nature. This whole issue of influence vs. coercion is a red herring b/c it is a continuum based in judgement by those on the outside and by those with historical vision to it. It is the ultimate in subjective. We are all open to suggestion at various levels of degree. We can be manipulated usually w/o even knowing it, and usually the most potent types of manipulation occur when we don't realize (that's me slurping my chocolate shake from McDonald's in the background, btw). The examples put forth can be used in so many ways to both support and counter all the examples given so far. No one put a gun to Eichman's head, but I guarantee that he was manipulated though so many tonics of suggestion that our minds would explode. He just happened to be more open to them then say the person next to him. But when it comes to Interaction/Service Design of course we are trying to use our knowledge of cognition & emotional psychology jointed together with theories of culture an society to not just fulfill needs but to increase productivity, keep people shopping or better, buying, and a host of other parts of the equation. Hell, it is called a Crackberry for a reason, no? So again, stop moralizing here and attaching that moralizing to any sort of limit to what IxD should or shouldn't be. It is only IxDA that says that IxD is to be harnessed for the improvement of the human condition, but IxD can be used for gambling and porn and military and advertising and media consumption and consumerism, etc. and etc. Hell, I know too many who wrote that "human condition" thing that are obviously NOT doing work to improve the total human condition at all, but that is an entirely different topic. I only mention it b/c even "improving the human condition" is obviously subjective too! Oh! and that example about organ donors was never presented by the person who did the research (I'm forgetting his name) as an example of those who filled it out to have been coerced, but rather the opposite. That the opt-in to donate folks were missing out on something they WANTED to do. He was comparing countries who both have high cultural levels of altruism and individual sacrifice for the whole. Sheesh, people! -- dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=44045 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [email protected] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
